New Bow

[pdxguy]

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be laws in place. However, I do feel that in most cases, the laws in place are sufficient and that people (law enforcement, government, politicians, and so forth) should spend more time focusing on enforcing these laws than continuing to make new laws that still aren't going to get enforced.

I agree that it's obvious that in some cases it is MUCH better to have the laws & regulations in place. This does limit the immediate access to people in the position of 'spur of the moment/anger crimes' and gives them a 'cooling off' period before the weapon can be handed over. It may also provide time for more extensive background checks, should a possible flag be raised on an initial check.

On the other hand there is the argument regarding your rights to privacy so to speak. If we are law abiding citizens who choose to own guns, then we should be able to do so, without question. The problem then becomes, how do you establish who is 'law abiding'? For the purpose of establishing the right to own a weapon, then various checks such as the current background check would be able establish this 'right'. The problem here then becomes your right to privacy.

I realize that it has already been stated in this thread that guns will NOT be taken away. This is true for the moment, and probably for the next while, especially having a gun toting red neck in office. On the other hand, we do switch presidents every soft often, and each one has their own issues, thoughts and beliefs regarding guns and gun control. As we saw during the Clinton years, there was a definite threat of people losing the right to either own guns, or atleast the right to own various types of guns. Many people do own fully automatic rifles in the states, many people own gun silencers as well, and in some cases and states these are completely legal. (I'm not getting into PREBAN, there's a lot of misconcept regarding that and I'm not going there) Clinton did push for bans on guns, especially assault rifles.

Many people do believe that if the government manages to somehow change the 2nd admendment, they could simply walk-in unannounced and take your weapons. IF this were to happen, they would be able to print out a little list that says exactly who owns guns, what the address is, and go on a collection spree. Sure there would be some outrage, some form of rebellion, but the bottom line is - they would have a named list of any offenders.

If we, as law abiding citizens, can own guns then we should be able to without question. We should be able to have whatever we want, whether it's fully automatic, silenced, or not. Sure, I can see the need for permits if we want to carry a concealed weapon. However, we should have the right to carry concealed if we meet the requirements to own a handgun. Single states should not be able to outlaw that right at their discretion. If you apply for a CCW, can legally own, you should be granted the right to do so.

Also, as mentioned above, I can see the need for background checks and other ways to rule out those without the right to own. However, I can also see the 'privacy' issue as well. My primary concern is that all of these damned people in office simply leave the gun laws alone. Enforce the rules that are there, and leave the modifications out. Stop trying to ban everything, stop trying to limit my rights - when I have done nothing 'wrong'.

 

[DeathShadow]

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be laws in place. However, I do feel that in most cases, the laws in place are sufficient and that people (law enforcement, government, politicians, and so forth) should spend more time focusing on enforcing these laws than continuing to make new laws that still aren't going to get enforced.

I agree that it's obvious that in some cases it is MUCH better to have the laws & regulations in place. This does limit the immediate access to people in the position of 'spur of the moment/anger crimes' and gives them a 'cooling off' period before the weapon can be handed over. It may also provide time for more extensive background checks, should a possible flag be raised on an initial check.

On the other hand there is the argument regarding your rights to privacy so to speak. If we are law abiding citizens who choose to own guns, then we should be able to do so, without question. The problem then becomes, how do you establish who is 'law abiding'? For the purpose of establishing the right to own a weapon, then various checks such as the current background check would be able establish this 'right'. The problem here then becomes your right to privacy.

I realize that it has already been stated in this thread that guns will NOT be taken away. This is true for the moment, and probably for the next while, especially having a gun toting red neck in office. On the other hand, we do switch presidents every soft often, and each one has their own issues, thoughts and beliefs regarding guns and gun control. As we saw during the Clinton years, there was a definite threat of people losing the right to either own guns, or atleast the right to own various types of guns. Many people do own fully automatic rifles in the states, many people own gun silencers as well, and in some cases and states these are completely legal. (I'm not getting into PREBAN, there's a lot of misconcept regarding that and I'm not going there) Clinton did push for bans on guns, especially assault rifles.

Many people do believe that if the government manages to somehow change the 2nd admendment, they could simply walk-in unannounced and take your weapons. IF this were to happen, they would be able to print out a little list that says exactly who owns guns, what the address is, and go on a collection spree. Sure there would be some outrage, some form of rebellion, but the bottom line is - they would have a named list of any offenders.

If we, as law abiding citizens, can own guns then we should be able to without question. We should be able to have whatever we want, whether it's fully automatic, silenced, or not. Sure, I can see the need for permits if we want to carry a concealed weapon. However, we should have the right to carry concealed if we meet the requirements to own a handgun. Single states should not be able to outlaw that right at their discretion. If you apply for a CCW, can legally own, you should be granted the right to do so.

Also, as mentioned above, I can see the need for background checks and other ways to rule out those without the right to own. However, I can also see the 'privacy' issue as well. My primary concern is that all of these damned people in office simply leave the gun laws alone. Enforce the rules that are there, and leave the modifications out. Stop trying to ban everything, stop trying to limit my rights - when I have done nothing 'wrong'.

Very well said PDX those are my thoughts almost exactly. The laws in place in NY are just fine now for gun control, I do not wish to have any more new laws and agree fully with just enforcing the old ones. I don’t think the second amendment will be thrown over any time soon; that would be a HUGE ordeal. But back to how this started – if we didn’t have dipshits using assault rifles to shoot up malls, schools, public places, drive bys, killing cops, we wouldn’t have a need for this privacy invasion/strict regulations. There would be hardly any negative attention towards weapons if there were no gun crimes; it all comes back to the source – I don’t point my finger at the politician alone. But because of that we all give up some freedom of some sort and this is just due to what you said:

Friend or Foe?

 

[kreed5821]

I don't think we will ever agree on this one, Death. I can see your point, but you make it sound as if illegal guns are hard to obtain. But private sells are legal here and require nothing except someone selling and someone buying. It is much easier for me to buy one from a person than from a store. How hard would it be the gov't to put something on our driver's license saying that we can buy a gun? Then private sellers could check your ID. We brag about freedom, right? But how free are we? Everyone wants the gov't to do this and that even if it does away with certain freedoms. I don't like anything or want anything that takes away a single little bit of freedom.

It is simple economics: supply and demand. As long as there are people who cannot legally own firearms, there will be people there to sell them firearms illegally. Most crimes are drug related. Why not put extra effort into drug prevention and leave guns alone? And throw out all of the lawsuits against the manufacturers. Guns don't kill people. I've never heard even one of my dozen or so guns threaten anyone. But I can go today and buy nearly any kind of gun I would want from someone no matter my history or intentions. Any thing that the gov't could do to deter that would just be more ********. People should be held accountable for their actions, not a gun manufacturer or an innocent person. We should not be punished or even harassed because of another person's crimes. Our gov't passes all of these laws but how fast do they let convicted felons out of prison before their time is served? Why not kill somebody if you will only spend seven years in prison?

I really believe that something should be imprinted on everyone's driver's license or state ID stating whether or not he/she can buy a gun. And if you can buy it, I think you should be able to carry it without any other kind of documentation. But, upon commiting a crime with a gun, you should lose that right and the penalty be stiff and strictly enforced.

A few years ago a man in a city near here, shot and killed the chief of police of another nearby city. The man was found innocent at trial because he acted in self-defense. Had he not went through the trouble of getting a carry permit, he would be dead.

In GA now, tinted windows are illegal. Why? Because police need to see into your car. Why? Because they want to see what you are doing. But their windows can be as dark as they want em. I don't think cops are any better than any other law abiding citizen. And those of you that live in FL beware of this law because it is clearly stated that it includes residents of other states where dark tint is legal who are coming into GA. As soon as you cross the state line, you are a criminal.

As for your argument about a first time offender, no one should be hindered by what they MIGHT or COULD do. Drunk drivers kill innocent people. But I shouldn't have a hard time buying a car because I MIGHT drive drunk. By the same reasoning, I MIGHT kill someone later on, so I shouldn't be allowed to have a gun period. It is wrong to harass people for actions not yet taken.

Too many people have died for freedom, but little by little it is being taken away.

 

[DeathShadow]

I don't think we will ever agree on this one, Death. I can see your point, but you make it sound as if illegal guns are hard to obtain. But private sells are legal here and require nothing except someone selling and someone buying. It is much easier for me to buy one from a person than from a store. How hard would it be the gov't to put something on our driver's license saying that we can buy a gun? Then private sellers could check your ID. We brag about freedom, right? But how free are we? Everyone wants the gov't to do this and that even if it does away with certain freedoms. I don't like anything or want anything that takes away a single little bit of freedom.

It is simple economics: supply and demand. As long as there are people who cannot legally own firearms, there will be people there to sell them firearms illegally. Most crimes are drug related. Why not put extra effort into drug prevention and leave guns alone? And throw out all of the lawsuits against the manufacturers. Guns don't kill people. I've never heard even one of my dozen or so guns threaten anyone. But I can go today and buy nearly any kind of gun I would want from someone no matter my history or intentions. Any thing that the gov't could do to deter that would just be more ********. People should be held accountable for their actions, not a gun manufacturer or an innocent person. We should not be punished or even harassed because of another person's crimes. Our gov't passes all of these laws but how fast do they let convicted felons out of prison before their time is served? Why not kill somebody if you will only spend seven years in prison?

I really believe that something should be imprinted on everyone's driver's license or state ID stating whether or not he/she can buy a gun. And if you can buy it, I think you should be able to carry it without any other kind of documentation. But, upon commiting a crime with a gun, you should lose that right and the penalty be stiff and strictly enforced.

A few years ago a man in a city near here, shot and killed the chief of police of another nearby city. The man was found innocent at trial because he acted in self-defense. Had he not went through the trouble of getting a carry permit, he would be dead.

In GA now, tinted windows are illegal. Why? Because police need to see into your car. Why? Because they want to see what you are doing. But their windows can be as dark as they want em. I don't think cops are any better than any other law abiding citizen. And those of you that live in FL beware of this law because it is clearly stated that it includes residents of other states where dark tint is legal who are coming into GA. As soon as you cross the state line, you are a criminal.

Too many people have died for freedom, but little by little it is being taken away.

Well I guess your laws are different, in NY it is NOT that easy (and I am mainly referring to pistols not rifles) to obtain one legally. Here tint IS legal and there is a legal limit (the limit is pretty damn dark) and the police also must abide to this limit. How would you go about determining who is friend/foe kreed? Do you think a proven felon should be able to own firearms? I am not saying illegal guns are hard to obtain but they are HARDER and take more time to obtain then simply walking into a store. Also while obtaining these weapons there is risk of being caught involved, the state actually pays people to rat out these people purchasing illegal fireworks/guns.

 

[kreed5821]

No, a felon should not be allowed. They forfeit their freedom in my opinion. What do mean determine friend/foe? Here it is not hard to obtain illegal guns. Have you tried to obtain them so that you actually know how hard it is?

 

[kreed5821]

I'm jumping around on subjects, I know. I'm sorry, my meds have me kinda light headed...lol

 

[DeathShadow]

Trust me... This is NY! A lot of my friends aren’t of the "nice nice" civil image exactly... It is not hard to obtain an illegal gun but it's harder (if we had no gun laws) then just walking into one of the numerous stores and purchasing one. You then run a risk of being caught (this helps weed out criminals by making them seek illegal sources that may be watched or later busted).

 

[kreed5821]

True. But what did you mean by determining friend/foe. You mean how should the stores tell or me personally? And for what purpose?

 

[xkingraptor350x]

[quote:2d9jla4e]

.. first of all if its a major crime.. police dont do the detective work.. the federal agetns do that.. and they have the power to do pretty much anything regardin that...
and second of all you cant carry your guns on you at all times.. but if you have a carry permit. you can go many places with a hinden handgun... get cought with out your permit= your ******

Ok as I said what is the problem with getting a "full carry" permit...? You can carry weapons in your vehicle with out **** though...[/quote:2d9jla4e]

a full carry premit takes about 6+ months to get.. and its hard to get..

 

[xkingraptor350x]

I'm jumping around on subjects, I know. I'm sorry, my meds have me kinda light headed...lol

take a few more!! lol j/k

 

[xkingraptor350x]

who think hiliary clinton id gonna run for president in the next election? and this has to do with the banning of guns.. if she runs and gets elected were ******.. simply put

 

[DeathShadow]

This is a hard convo to talk about because apparently our states laws are very different. I meant how should the stores tell?

 

[xkingraptor350x]

how should the stores tell wht?

 

[kreed5821]

That's why I think they should imprint it on your driver's license if you are a convicted felon. And if you are convicted of a crime, they should take your license so you have to get a new one which would have something saying you cannot own a firearm. That way a private seller could also check your license before selling you a gun. I think that would work better than any waiting period and would be an instant sort of back ground check. They could also have a database open to the public so that if someone is on the run, you could do a search of the database and find out if their right to own/purchase firearms has been revoked but they haven't surrendered their license yet.

 

[pdxguy]

Wow, a great many things have been said since I last looked, and definitely a few that I want to comment on. Let me see what I can do...

Death - I don't forsee the 2nd amendment being tossed out either. As mentioned above our current RIO (Redneck in Office) isn't a threat the 2nd amendment. However, in the future we may have other threats, like with did during the Clinton years.

As for the dipshits running around with assault rifles, that is definitely a problem. Limiting this is a both a unneccessary evil and also a realistic need. It shouldn't be happening, but it does. I have to agree with some of what Tom Selleck pointed out in the interview with Rosie. Years ago we didn't have the same problems, as we do now. Before when someone wanted to kill themselves, they did just that - pulled out the gun and shot themselves. Now for some unknown reason, they feel the need to take one or more people with them. This is a sign of something else changing, something in our society/culture that has changed. Even when I Was in high school we didn't have kids running the halls with guns, maybe knives, but not guns. Then again, there are other signs of this being a growing problem. Even though it didn't happen here 10 years ago, it happened in Southern California. They have had metal detectors in parts of Los Angeles for 20 years or more. However, it's not until we get someone like Clinton in office, some with a hatred for guns, to point out the problem and to use the media to support their views. Before Clinton was in office you heard very little national news of school shootings, but while he was in office it seemed as though they happened monthly, if not weekly or daily. Did the problem really worsen that much during his time in office? I don't think so. I think the media added hype to it, to reflect that it is a problem that is often sheltered by the media rather than exploited and shown to the world. Look at the media now.. when was the last school shooting? There was one, I think about 8 months ago - but I'm not positive on that. The media covered very little of it. I personally believe a lot of that has to do with Bush in office. Gun control isn't a priority in his mind, atleast not like it was to Clinton. Therefore, the media has to focus less on covering that information. Based on this, I believe that some of these worthless laws and attempts at gun control are brought on by politicians. Granted, there are other factors involved too, but in my sight that does stand out.

Kreed - As for placing something on everyones ID, there are pros and cons to that as well. The biggest that that I see first off, is having a system that can be updated easily and cost effectively. A gun owner that loses his right to own, isn't going to happily turn in their ID to simply PAY to get a new one. Local states, counties or otherwise aren't going to want to pay out regularly to cover the cost of issuing new IDs for offenders.

Another issue with this is going to be the idea that you will need some sort of standard among state IDs. I suppose this opens the door to another topic, in some minds - a not-so-friendly-topic, National IDs. As you may be aware, this was recently passed by including it in the 82 Billion Dollar War Fund that was approved. It states that ALL states must comply and convert to a national ID card within, I think 3 years. The cost of doing this would have to be covered by each individual state, and there would not be any federal funding to assist with this. Any state that rejects the idea could face having their identification rejected by federal authorities, thereby invalidating any drivers license, passport and so on. This 'change' is estimated to cost each state millions of dollars, millions they do not have.
However, if this DID happen, it would provide an easy, effective method to implement a status section representing your right to own handguns. Then again, it would cause a huge headache for whatever agency had to record, track and maintain changes to each user.

I do however, have to fully agree that we, as legally capable of owning, should not be judged on either the actions of others, or the possibility of what we could potentially do. Seemds a little to "Minority Report" for me.

And yes, if Hillary gets in office we are all gonna have issues. Then again, picture my nightmare.... The Presidential Canidates are Hillary Clinton and Condeleeza Rice!

You choose....


pdxguy

 

[kreed5821]

You are wrong about the states having to foot the bill. You and I will be doing that. How much does your license cost? Here I think it is $20. That could be raised a dollar and easily pay for the program to put "Felon" on it if applicable, sorta like the "under 21" here in GA. And when someone is convicted, they are in custody so confiscate their ID then. If someone is accused and on the run, put their name on a list which is viewable by everyone. That can't be any harder than the current paper work involved.
I don't think we will ever be like England and all guns be banned, but Clinton would love it. And will certainly try. I don't think she'll ever get in though. When it's time to vote, I go to the NRA website and see how each politician has voted on gun issues and vote for or against them accordingly. I don't really look for Democrats to be in control much for a long while. Most of the older people who vote democratic just because they are democrats are getting too old to vote or passing away. My Grandpas are both like that. They are democrats and have always been democrats and will always vote for democrats.

I am a republican by convictions. I believe abortion is murder and gun control is communist. Therefore, I usually vote republican. My grandpas believe the same as me but don't understand that how politicians vote is a matter of public record.

 

[xkingraptor350x]

wow death look at wht you and me started lol..

 

[kreed5821]

I like the old saying, "they can have my guns...bullets first!" or "when they pry em from my cold dead hands."

 

[DeathShadow]

I am for abortion >_<.

 

[kreed5821]

and gun control...lol
Damn yankees!

Guess all we have in common is my favorite hobby. Riding!

THATS ENOUGH FOR ME!!!

I'm still voting against your lady president though...lol